turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Forum:Tabitas
Wanted to add this to the talk page on the entry for Tabitas, but for some reason I can't edit that page (locked?). :Yes, we locked it to avoid possible hit-and-run editors telling us we were wrong and going to Hell. We do that with all the articles relating to religious figures/leaders. I was not aware the talk page was also being closed. Sorry about that. TR 15:20, April 19, 2011 (UTC) ::I think we closed the Talk Page because the article included the note "See Talk Page for our explanation of why we've decided Tabitas is David" and so we needed it to remain unaltered from that point forward. Turtle Fan 17:23, April 19, 2011 (UTC) Basically, wanted to mention that there is a book named "Jewish Socialism in Ottoman Salonica" which was translated into Greek as "Hellines kai Evraioi Ergates sthn Thessaloniki twn Neotourkwn" ("Greek and Jewish Workers in the Neoturks' Thessaloniki"). Plus, if you check this reference (http://www.etz-hayyim-hania.org/_commun/hist02.html ) you'll see "Evraioi" being used as a Greek term for "Hebrews". The usage is even more apropos when you realize that the Philistines (and thus their Philistinian descendants in the story) were of a Greek extraction (hence the reference to being related to the "Ellenes" of Syria - itself indicative of the Hellene/Greek presence in Syria (a Greek corruption of Assyria) that's always been strong there historically), meaning that the Philistinian language is almost certainly Greek-based. So the viewpoint characters in the story using a Greek term for Jews makes perfect sense. So it seems pretty clear that "Tabitas of the Evraioi" is essentially "Tabitas of the Jews". And following up on that and assuming that linguistic corruption could have occurred (Tabitas is really only a slight shift from Davidas, or Davidus), and adding in the fact that they mentioned him being killed by Goliath, and it seems pretty obvious it was definitely meant as a reference to David. And the off-handed nature of the comment itself makes it seem like it was only really referenced to reveal the point of divergence (ie, Goliath beats David, the Jewish nation crumbles while the Greek Philistines thrive, fast-forward a few thousand years and the Philistinians are the dominant force in the region). Factor in the knowledge that Moab was conquered by Israal during David's reign, and the use of "Moabite" implies that the weakening of the Jewish nation at the hands of Goliath resulted in it ultimately being absorbed by their eastern Moab neighbors, and we essentially have a scenario wherein Israel's real-world history was co-opted by Moab, while the Jews became Moabites. Add in the last piece of the puzzle (that the entire story is pretty clearly a situations-reversed scenario about the current Israeli-Palestinian relations), and most of the contextual references make perfect sense. The only real quirk is being aware that neither Christianity nor Islam likely arose in this world at all - the Greeks likely retain the same faith they had in the time of Alexander (as the Philistines clearly still retain their ancient religion), whereas the Roman Empire almost certainly shifted to Mithraism. CrystalPalace 06:02, April 19, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks. I think that solves the matter (I still haven't read the story). TR 15:20, April 19, 2011 (UTC) :Neither have I, but I'm convinced. Maybe we should make the note explaining our decision to call Tabitas David redirect here. Turtle Fan 17:23, April 19, 2011 (UTC)